S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application by the original defendant-petitioner under sec. 115, CPC arises from the order of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, (J. D.) at Jamnagar dated 30. 6. 1998 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1175/85 below Ex. 105 under which the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit if and when necessity arises in respect of the suit property. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1175/85 for declaration and permanent injunction. It is prayed that the court may declare that the defendants, their agents, servants, power of attorney holders or anybody are not entitled to recover the rent as well as to have/take the possession of any portion of the suit property known as "hem nivas" situated opposite Lai Baug, near Jain Derasar in Jamnagar city, without taking the present plaintiff with them. Prayer of permanent injunction has been made in the matter to restrain the defendants, their agents, servant, men, power of attorney holders or anybody not to recover the rent or to take possession of the above mentioned property from the remaining tenants without keeping with them the present plaintiff. The defendant No. 1, petitioner No. 1 in this revision-application, namely Arvindkumar Ratilal Punatar has also filed special civil suit No. 20/90 against the plaintiff-respondent and many other persons in respect of the subject matter of "hem Nivas". In the suit aforestated, the plaintiff-respondent is the defendant No. 8. From the facts of special civil suit No. 20/90 it transpires that heirs of deceased Chhotalal Hemchand have sold their rights and share of "hem Nivas" to the plaintiff-respondent. In the civil suit No. 20/90, the plaintiffs therein are claiming right of pre-emption. In the suit, out of which this revision application arises, the plaintiff-respondent has closed the evidence and defendants have declared that they do not want to produce any evidence. So the suit has reached to the stage of final arguments and at this stage, the application for withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file fresh one has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Prayer has been made for withdrawal of the civil suit out of which this revision application in the factual matrix that in the special civil suit No. 20/90 the subject matter of dispute is the same property. Prayer has been made for withdrawal of the civil suit out of which this revision application in the factual matrix that in the special civil suit No. 20/90 the subject matter of dispute is the same property. In the suit aforestated, the defendant has accepted that the sale of suit property by the heirs of deceased Chhotalal Hemchand to the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of that factual aspect they claim the right of pre-emption. In the special civil suit. No. 20/90, the evidence of the plaintiff has been started and as the present suit is only for limited purpose it is meaningless to proceed further with the suit. For his rights he will give legal fight in the special civil suit No. 20/90. This application has been opposed by the defendant- petitioners but under the impugned order the same has been granted. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of jurisdiction in granting liberty to the plaintiff-respondent to file fresh suit if and when necessity arises in respect of the suit property. So far as permitting withdrawal of the suit by the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) IT is true that the scope of sufficient cause in a given case may be taken to be wider than former defect in the suit. It may not be in dispute that the parties to the suit are coparcenars in the suit property. It is also equally not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent being one of the coparcenars in the property, may have a legitimate grievance in respect of management of the suit property against other coparcenars and for adjudication of those grievances, determination of shares and the possession thereof he has a right to file a suit. However, I fail to see in the facts and circumstances of the present case, how it can be taken to be a case of sufficient cause where the plaintiff- respondent should have been granted liberty by the Trial Court to file fresh suit if necessity arises. However, I fail to see in the facts and circumstances of the present case, how it can be taken to be a case of sufficient cause where the plaintiff- respondent should have been granted liberty by the Trial Court to file fresh suit if necessity arises. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated in its correct perspective an important fact that the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit way back in the year 1985. It is not the case where the plaintiff-respondent was not aware of his right, title and interest in the suit property and in fact he filed the civil suit. It is his fault if he has not properly framed the suit. It is not for the court to find out the defects in the plaint, that is to say to make out the case for the plaintiff-respondent. It is for the plaintiff to point out that for formal defect or for some other sufficient cause, liberty may be granted to him to file fresh suit, if necessity arises in respect of the suit property. In the case in hand from the order of the learned Trial Court, I find as if the court is to find out the formal defect of the suit or to make out sufficient cause for the plaintiff to grant him permission to file fresh suit if necessity arises. It is to be stated, at the cost of repetition that the plaintiff has to plead specifically the formal defects or any other sufficient cause to justify his prayer for grant of liberty to him to file fresh suit if necessity arises. This has to borne out from the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the present case for withdrawal of the suit. Merely because the plaintiff-respondent has prayed for grant of liberty to him to file fresh suit, if necessity arises, it is not legally permissible to the Court while permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit to grant simultaneously liberty to him to file fresh suit, if necessity arises. ( 7 ) IF we go by the contents of the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for withdrawal of the suit, I find that in fact he was not desirous of seeking any liberty to file fresh suit, if necessity arises. ( 7 ) IF we go by the contents of the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for withdrawal of the suit, I find that in fact he was not desirous of seeking any liberty to file fresh suit, if necessity arises. It is in the end of the application in the prayer, it has been mentioned for granting to him the liberty to file fresh suit, if needed. The learned Trial court should not have misled itself by this prayer made. Learned Trial Court should have considered by going deep in the matter whether any case of formal defect has been pleaded or any case of sufficient cause which justifies his prayer for grant of liberty to file fresh suit, if necessity arises. From the contents of the application, I find that the plaintiff-respondent prayed for withdrawal of the suit as the dispute regarding right, title and interest in the suit property are to be decided in substantive suit i. e. , Civil Suit No. 20/90. The suit out of which this revision application arises is stated to be filed for limited purpose and the plaintiff-respondent very specifically stated that in view of the limited scope of the suit, it is meaningless to proceed further with it. So the plaintiff-respondent has come up with the specific case that the dispute regarding right, title and interest of the suit property between the parties are to be adjudicated and decided in the substantive suit, being special civil suit No. 20/90, there is no meaning to proceed with this suit out of which this revision application arises. In this application, I do not find that the plaintiff-respondent has pleaded any formal defect in the suit or any sufficient cause which justifies the grant of him the liberty to him to file fresh suit. It is a case where the learned Trial Court as if it is totally ignorant of the conditions precedent for grant of liberty to file fresh suit, has in routine course taken to be a formal matter and liberty to file fresh suit has been granted. It is no doubt indefeasible right of the plaintiff to withdraw his suit or abandon the claim in the suit. It is no doubt indefeasible right of the plaintiff to withdraw his suit or abandon the claim in the suit. Ordinarily, nobody can object for withdrawal or amendment of the claim by the plaintiff in the suit but it is not an indefeasible right or the matter of course to grant liberty to the plaintiff by the Trial court to file the fresh suit, if necessity arises. It is equally important to notice that the courts are not to be misled by the fact that where the prayer has been made by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit with a condition to grant liberty to file fresh suit, the later prayer has to be granted. First and second prayers made in the application were to be dealt with and decided on different footing and legal approach. These are two distinct and separate prayers which are to be dealt with separately and the court should not have taken that where the suit has to be withdrawn, the rule should have been to grant liberty to file fresh suit. also. In a case where prayer has been made for liberty to file fresh suit, the matter has to be considered on the touch stone of requirement of Order 23 Rule 1 of cpc and only when the plaintiff has made out the case of formal defect in the suit or a case of sufficient cause and the court is satisfied, it may permit the withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit, if necessity arises to the plaintiff. In the present case, learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 and 3 of the CPC. It is a clear case where the Court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, which calls for the interference of this court under Sec. 115, CPC. The order passed by the learned Trial Court and impugned in this civil revision application is clearly made in violation of the provisions of Order 23, Rules 1 and 3, CPC, and it cannot be allowed to stand. The petitioners have opposed the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent made in the application for grant of liberty to file fresh suit. The order passed by the learned Trial Court and impugned in this civil revision application is clearly made in violation of the provisions of Order 23, Rules 1 and 3, CPC, and it cannot be allowed to stand. The petitioners have opposed the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent made in the application for grant of liberty to file fresh suit. Grant of such a prayer by the learned Trial Court has given a right in the hands of the plaintiff- respondent to file the suit of same nature for the same relief at any point of time i. e. , even after the decision of the special civil suit No. 20/90. This will amount to of hanging sword on the head of the petitioner for all time to come and certainly in case the order of the learned Trial Court is allowed to stand it will not only occasion a failure of justice to them but will also cause irreparable injury to them. ( 8 ) IN the result, this civil revision application succeeds and the order of the learned court below to the extent where it grants liberty to plaintiff-respondent to file fresh suit, if necessity arises, is quashed and set aside. To this extent only the revision application is allowed with no order as to costs. .